I'm pleased to report that our congregation just voted by a landslide to join the roster of "Open and Affirming" ("ONA") congregations within the UCC. Here is the declaration we adopted:
We, the congregation of First Congregational United Church of Christ, Fort Worth, declare ourselves to be Open and Affirming. We strive to be a congregation that includes all persons, embracing differences of sexual orientation, gender and its expression, marital status, age, mental and physical health and ability, racial and cultural identity or background, educational level and socioeconomic status. We welcome all to share in the life, leadership, ministry, fellowship, worship, sacraments, responsibilities, joys and blessings of our mutual life in Christ.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Monday, April 28, 2008
Soulforce Vigil during United Methodist General Convention, Fort Worth Convention Center, 26 April 2008
Methodist Youth Group Drumming Circle
Pastor Carol of Celebration Church, Fort Worth, & Friend
Two Friends and Fellow Congregants
Vigilants near entrance to Convention Center
Entrance
A Fellow Vigilant at our Station
Sunday, February 10, 2008
My friend Barbi makes an interesting point over at her blog: http://feathersandfaith.blogspot.com/2008/02/i-dont-believe-in-god.html. Briefly put, she alludes to the challenge Progressive Christians may face in engaging in dialogue with progressives, and particularly GLBT folks, who reject belief in God. Here's the response I left on her blog:
I've known and know a lot of decent folks who proclaim that they don't believe in God--as a group, I find they're often more loving and decent than many of the folks who make noise about believing in God.I've found it useful to ask folks when they tell me they don't believe in God, what exactly they mean by that. I often find that I don't believe in the god they reject, either. That can be an interesting place from which to begin dialogue.Such folks are rarely thorough-going nihilists. At least implicitly and practically, they base many of their choices on unexamined assumptions that there is a kind of implicit moral order within and beyond the creation, by which actions and decisions can and must be judged. When pushed, they are often willing to affirm that that implicit order cannot be something sub-human, but must in fact represent something that transcends our indivdual states and forms at any particular moment. And, that is partly what--or perhaps better, whom--I'm referring to when I speak of God.On that basis, I often find I share much common ground with professed atheists; often more than I share with a great many self-described Christians or other theists.In fact, the atheism of some of my GLBT and other friends often seems to me a moral advance over the theism they once embraced, and which many professed Christians still embrace.The challenge for progressive people of faith is, first, to articulate a vision of God clearly distinct from the authoritarian tyrant and/or naively anthropomorphic image quite reasonably rejected by both atheists and progressive theists. Secondly, to make a case for how such a vision can be in continuity with the religious traditions to which we belong. And thirdly, to point out why progressive participation within such tradition is better than trying to operate completely outside it (not an easy task).
I've known and know a lot of decent folks who proclaim that they don't believe in God--as a group, I find they're often more loving and decent than many of the folks who make noise about believing in God.I've found it useful to ask folks when they tell me they don't believe in God, what exactly they mean by that. I often find that I don't believe in the god they reject, either. That can be an interesting place from which to begin dialogue.Such folks are rarely thorough-going nihilists. At least implicitly and practically, they base many of their choices on unexamined assumptions that there is a kind of implicit moral order within and beyond the creation, by which actions and decisions can and must be judged. When pushed, they are often willing to affirm that that implicit order cannot be something sub-human, but must in fact represent something that transcends our indivdual states and forms at any particular moment. And, that is partly what--or perhaps better, whom--I'm referring to when I speak of God.On that basis, I often find I share much common ground with professed atheists; often more than I share with a great many self-described Christians or other theists.In fact, the atheism of some of my GLBT and other friends often seems to me a moral advance over the theism they once embraced, and which many professed Christians still embrace.The challenge for progressive people of faith is, first, to articulate a vision of God clearly distinct from the authoritarian tyrant and/or naively anthropomorphic image quite reasonably rejected by both atheists and progressive theists. Secondly, to make a case for how such a vision can be in continuity with the religious traditions to which we belong. And thirdly, to point out why progressive participation within such tradition is better than trying to operate completely outside it (not an easy task).
Monday, January 14, 2008
Dr. Louie Crew, Founder of Integrity, to speak in Fort Worth
Some people are threatening to split from The Episcopal Church because of its full inclusion of gay and lesbian Episcopalians in the life and ministry of the church. But many Episcopalians agree with the move toward full inclusion of all the Baptized, or want to learn more about it.
One of the most articulate voices on this subject is Dr. Louie Crew, founder of Integrity. Integrity is a nonprofit organization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender [LGBT] Episcopalians and straight friends. Since its founding by Dr. Crew in rural Georgia in 1974, Integrity has been the leading grassroots voice for the full inclusion of LGBT persons in The Episcopal Church and equal access to its rites.
On Saturday, March 1, 2008, Integrity Fort Worth will host Dr. Crew, whose topic will be “Exceedingly Glad in Times Like These,” at Celebration Community Church, 908 Pennsylvania Avenue, Fort Worth, TX. Dr. Crew will speak at 3:30 PM after the Holy Eucharist at 2:00 PM, led by the Rt. Rev. Sam Hulsey, retired bishop of Northwest Texas. Registration will begin at 1:30 p.m. There will be a reception in the parish hall following Dr. Crew’s address.
A native of Anniston, Alabama, Crew holds earned degrees from Baylor University (BA, 1958), Auburn (MA, 1959) and the University of Alabama (PhD, 1971) and honorary doctorates from three Episcopal seminaries: EDS (Cambridge, 1999), General (NYC, 2003), and EDS Pacific (Berkeley, 2004). He has held fellowships at UCal Berkeley, the University of Texas (Austin), and the University of Chicago. He is the author of more than 1620 publications.
An emeritus professor of English at Rutgers University, Crew taught there from 1989 to 2001 and served two terms as Chair of its Senate and a member of its Board of Governors. At other times during his 44-year career, he was a prep school master and a professor of black higher education in the rural south. He also taught for five years in rural Wisconsin and four years in Beijing and Hong Kong.
Dr. Crew’s contributions to the Church have been many. A five time deputy to General Convention from the Diocese of Newark, he chaired Newark’s deputation in 2006. He has served two terms on the Standing Committee of his Diocese, twice as its President, and is now clerk of the vestry at Grace Church, Newark. He is also the secretary of Province Two of the Episcopal Church as well as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Nominations. He recently finished his term on the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church, the body that governs the church between General Conventions.
Louie Crew and Ernest Clay entered a life partnership in February 1974.
*********************************
This event is free if attendees pre-register online at http://integrityfortworth.org.
Monday, September 3, 2007
Vote for Obama!
A link to Obama's responses to the Human Rights Campaign's questionnaire. Not 100%, but as close as any Democratic candidate gets. And, you gotta love his positions on economic justice, health care, education, Iraq, restoring our international reputation, women's rights, civil rights, and much more.
Saturday, August 4, 2007
Below is the letter to the editor my Integrity chapter recently sent to our local newspaper:
To the Editor:
We members of *** Integrity read with interest ***'s report on the recent meeting at the Episcopalian Cathedral in Bedford, Texas, aimed at forging a coalition of North Americans with Anglican roots upset by the Episcopal Church's "liberal" direction.
*** Integrity is the local chapter of a national grassroots organization advocating the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the Episcopal Church and our equal access to its rites. In Jones' report, Bishop Ackerman, one of the organizers of this new conservative coalition, states that one of its goals is to encourage "Episcopalians who have felt there's no place left for them." We certainly know what that feels like.
Among the group signing this letter we include a couple whose life became untenable at the parish where they had been active members for years after one stood up at a diocesan convention to give a human face to the gays and lesbians being denigrated there. One is a mother whose gay son has been alienated from the church by the bigoted policies of the local diocese. Another is a man whose faithful partner of thirty-five years recently died without their ever having been able so much as to go forward in the church to which they had actively contributed for decades for a commonplace anniversary blessing. One of us is a former Episcopal seminarian whose bishop abruptly withdrew sponsorship for his candidacy to the priesthood when he asked for a church blessing on his relationship with his partner, though he had consistently been frank with the bishop about his orientation. Another is a father who has left the church in which he was baptized, raised and confirmed, because he found no way to answer his daughters' questions about why others were married in their church, but their father and his partner could not be. Our group is not allowed to meet at even the most "liberal" of our local Episcopal churches, due to the rector's concern over the reprisal he fears would occur from Bishop *** and his supporters.
Our stories are only the tip of the iceberg. Among our friends and acquaintances, we count others, be they gay, lesbian, or their friends and family, who have left the Episcopal Church in this diocese because they found "there's no place left for them" there. Of course, we vocal ones are a small minority. Larger is the number of local gay and lesbian Episcopalians who remain in fearful silence, including the youth subjected Sunday after Sunday to the message--often subtle, too often overt--that their capacity to love is an abomination in God's eyes. Forgive us if we remain unmoved by the complaints of our bishop, ***, and his fellow-travelers, who would rather split from the Episcopal Church than grant us full inclusion within the life of the church.
[Seven signatures]
To the Editor:
We members of *** Integrity read with interest ***'s report on the recent meeting at the Episcopalian Cathedral in Bedford, Texas, aimed at forging a coalition of North Americans with Anglican roots upset by the Episcopal Church's "liberal" direction.
*** Integrity is the local chapter of a national grassroots organization advocating the full inclusion of lesbian and gay people in the Episcopal Church and our equal access to its rites. In Jones' report, Bishop Ackerman, one of the organizers of this new conservative coalition, states that one of its goals is to encourage "Episcopalians who have felt there's no place left for them." We certainly know what that feels like.
Among the group signing this letter we include a couple whose life became untenable at the parish where they had been active members for years after one stood up at a diocesan convention to give a human face to the gays and lesbians being denigrated there. One is a mother whose gay son has been alienated from the church by the bigoted policies of the local diocese. Another is a man whose faithful partner of thirty-five years recently died without their ever having been able so much as to go forward in the church to which they had actively contributed for decades for a commonplace anniversary blessing. One of us is a former Episcopal seminarian whose bishop abruptly withdrew sponsorship for his candidacy to the priesthood when he asked for a church blessing on his relationship with his partner, though he had consistently been frank with the bishop about his orientation. Another is a father who has left the church in which he was baptized, raised and confirmed, because he found no way to answer his daughters' questions about why others were married in their church, but their father and his partner could not be. Our group is not allowed to meet at even the most "liberal" of our local Episcopal churches, due to the rector's concern over the reprisal he fears would occur from Bishop *** and his supporters.
Our stories are only the tip of the iceberg. Among our friends and acquaintances, we count others, be they gay, lesbian, or their friends and family, who have left the Episcopal Church in this diocese because they found "there's no place left for them" there. Of course, we vocal ones are a small minority. Larger is the number of local gay and lesbian Episcopalians who remain in fearful silence, including the youth subjected Sunday after Sunday to the message--often subtle, too often overt--that their capacity to love is an abomination in God's eyes. Forgive us if we remain unmoved by the complaints of our bishop, ***, and his fellow-travelers, who would rather split from the Episcopal Church than grant us full inclusion within the life of the church.
[Seven signatures]
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Letter to the Editor
Here's the letter to the editor I wrote them in response, and which they published the week after the article appeared:
To the editor: I wish that I’d had the opportunity 16 years ago to read Eric Griffey’s strong, even-handed report on the damage done by those seeking to offer a “Gay Cure” (June 13, 2007). It might have dissuaded me from over a decade of painful and misguided efforts to “pray the gay away.”
Groups like Arlington’s “Living Hope” seek to reconfirm, under the guise of pseudo-scientific, professionally discredited theories and methods, the bigotry amid which we allow many of our young people to be raised. Young gay men and lesbians who read Griffey’s report will be much less likely to place themselves at the mercy of such quackery. It is unlikely they can appreciate, without the hindsight of those who fell prey to these groups, what reports like Griffey’s may have done for them, or thank him for the effort. So let me do it for them.
To the editor: I wish that I’d had the opportunity 16 years ago to read Eric Griffey’s strong, even-handed report on the damage done by those seeking to offer a “Gay Cure” (June 13, 2007). It might have dissuaded me from over a decade of painful and misguided efforts to “pray the gay away.”
Groups like Arlington’s “Living Hope” seek to reconfirm, under the guise of pseudo-scientific, professionally discredited theories and methods, the bigotry amid which we allow many of our young people to be raised. Young gay men and lesbians who read Griffey’s report will be much less likely to place themselves at the mercy of such quackery. It is unlikely they can appreciate, without the hindsight of those who fell prey to these groups, what reports like Griffey’s may have done for them, or thank him for the effort. So let me do it for them.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Just how inclusive should we be?
The folks over at Daily Episcopalian, which the Integrity site includes among its roll of progressive blogs, has included an essay by Derek Olsen, who teaches at Emory, rejecting arguments on behalf of extending communion to the non-baptized. You can read it here, but may need to find it in the July archives. Here's my response:
I share Derek Olsen's convictions about the importance of catechism, but am uncovinced that Jesus wants us to set ourselves up as gatekeepers, making decisions on the basis of outward forms about who has or has not made an “adequate” act of commitment before admitting them to the table.
I understand one might respond that the real issue is in not being a gatekeeper to baptism; that undergoing baptism is simply a part of coming to the table. That may be so, and I believe it makes sense to continue to present it as so. But, when someone who has not undergone outward, ritual baptism comes forward for communion, are we to turn them away? Is this what Jesus would do?
I suspect even the ritual of baptism can become an idol, when we fail to distinguish between its physical, outward form and the underlying spiritual reality.
Are we to take it that, in Jesus’ eyes, there is “neither Jew nor Greek, but … well, of course, there is the outwardly baptized versus the non-baptized”?
In the pericope of the Syrophoenician woman/ Canaanite woman (Mk 7:24-30 // Mt 15:21-28), there is good reason to argue that the latter–who pointedly did not belong to the “community of Israel” in her contemporaries’ eyes–takes up the role of rabbi in a “rabbinal controversy” (one of the traditional discursive forms catalogued by Rudolf Bultmann) with Jesus, and wins the argument. Jesus seems to bow to the force of her argument that she should not be excluded from the meal. Or, as she humbly–and pointedly–puts it, “Even the dogs are allowed to eat the crumbs that fall from the table.”
Granted, her response may well allude to several scriptural passages, demonstrating her desire to embrace the stories shared by those “at the table.” But, ultimately, Jesus proved unwilling to exclude this woman from being fed on the basis of her not having undergone a specific ritual of induction.
She wasn’t baptized–or ritually converted to Judaism–before Jesus conceded her argument, praised her faith, and stopped treating her as an outcast. He pointedly did not tell her (utlimately), “No, first undergo the mikvah, then you can be fed.”
I share Derek Olsen's convictions about the importance of catechism, but am uncovinced that Jesus wants us to set ourselves up as gatekeepers, making decisions on the basis of outward forms about who has or has not made an “adequate” act of commitment before admitting them to the table.
I understand one might respond that the real issue is in not being a gatekeeper to baptism; that undergoing baptism is simply a part of coming to the table. That may be so, and I believe it makes sense to continue to present it as so. But, when someone who has not undergone outward, ritual baptism comes forward for communion, are we to turn them away? Is this what Jesus would do?
I suspect even the ritual of baptism can become an idol, when we fail to distinguish between its physical, outward form and the underlying spiritual reality.
Are we to take it that, in Jesus’ eyes, there is “neither Jew nor Greek, but … well, of course, there is the outwardly baptized versus the non-baptized”?
In the pericope of the Syrophoenician woman/ Canaanite woman (Mk 7:24-30 // Mt 15:21-28), there is good reason to argue that the latter–who pointedly did not belong to the “community of Israel” in her contemporaries’ eyes–takes up the role of rabbi in a “rabbinal controversy” (one of the traditional discursive forms catalogued by Rudolf Bultmann) with Jesus, and wins the argument. Jesus seems to bow to the force of her argument that she should not be excluded from the meal. Or, as she humbly–and pointedly–puts it, “Even the dogs are allowed to eat the crumbs that fall from the table.”
Granted, her response may well allude to several scriptural passages, demonstrating her desire to embrace the stories shared by those “at the table.” But, ultimately, Jesus proved unwilling to exclude this woman from being fed on the basis of her not having undergone a specific ritual of induction.
She wasn’t baptized–or ritually converted to Judaism–before Jesus conceded her argument, praised her faith, and stopped treating her as an outcast. He pointedly did not tell her (utlimately), “No, first undergo the mikvah, then you can be fed.”
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Wish I'd said it like that!
(From The New Statesman)
I am what I am and it's not a choice
Peterson Toscano
Published 20 July 2007
Being gay myself, many folks consider me an expert on all things gay. Did Alexander the great have a male lover? What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For my bay window, should I use lace or chintz curtains?
As a gay theatrical performance activist, the most common question I get is: “how old are you?”
Such a rude question, but completely understandable because of my wild past including the 17-year quest to transform myself into a heterosexual with side trips to Zambia, England, and Ecuador plus a five year marriage. They look at my fresh, young face and wonder 'how did you do all that?' I explain that I am a 42-year-old, non-smoking vegan who moisturizes (It is never too young to start!).
The second most common question I get is: “do people choose to be gay?”
When someone is romantically and sexually attracted to someone of the same-sex, is this nature or nurture? Genetics or a mere whim?
This is a scientific question, best left to scientists. No one knows for sure although researchers have amassed a body of evidence that points to biological factors leading to a same-sex orientation.
One recent study by J. Michael Bailey at Boston’s Northeastern University revealed that among identical twin brothers, if one is gay, the other has a 52 per cent chance of being gay. (Fraternal twins show a 22 per cent chance while brothers who are not twins and do not share the same genetic code show only an 11 per cent chance of both being gay). According to a 1997 Canadian study, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines discovered that the more brothers in a family, the higher the chance that the youngest ones will be gay.
No one has yet discovered the “gay gene”, but, then again, scientists have yet to discover a gene that causes some people to be left-handed.
Human sexuality is highly complex. We all start out in the womb as female, and then mom’s body puts some of us through a hormonal rinse cycle, which turns us male. With such a complicated transition who can say if all humans are 100 per cent male or female. Scientifically speaking we determine someone’s sex according to many factors, not simply the bits between our legs.
But I stray into murky embryonic waters. Back to choice. Did I choose to be gay?
Yes, on September 21, 1972 in 2nd grade (age 7) I said to myself: “Although most people treat gays like crap and only heterosexuality is represented and celebrated in my world, from this time forth I choose to like other boys instead of girls. Sure others will bully me, maybe even beat me up, but hey someone’s got to be society’s punching bag."
Actually, no, I never chose to be gay. In fact, for nearly two decades I even tried choosing NOT to be gay.
Growing up I knew I was different from the other boys around me. When puberty hit and all my male friends went crazy for girls while I went crazy for my male friends, I understood the difference—I was gay, a homo, a queer, a faggot. From messages I heard on the playground, in the media and at church, I determined gays are sinful and abnormal. Instead I wanted to be a good boy.
So, at the age of 17 after giving my heart (and the rest of me) to Jesus, I embarked on a journey to straighten myself out. I spent 17 years and over $30,000 USD on three continents attempting to change or at least suppress my same-sex attractions. I discovered the Ex-Gay Movement, which promises that homosexuals can live gay-free lives. I reasoned that if being gay were a choice, a product of a dysfunctional upbringing in the midst of a lost and dying world, than surely with the power of God and the guidance of ex-gay ministers, I could “un-choose” being gay or at least choose the right thing for a change.
No surprise, it didn't work. Change was not possible, at least not a change in sexual orientation. But through the years of trying I did change. I became suicidal, filled with shame and self-loathing. The ex-gay process left me depleted, discouraged and depressed. It caused emotional, psychological and spiritual harm.
No, I never chose my same-sex attractions. Also, after I came to my senses and came out of the closet, I did not choose to be “gay”—to act gay according to the current standards and stereotypes presented in both the gay and straight media. Instead I chose to be authentic, to no longer demonise my sexuality, to integrate my faith with the rest of my life. I did choose to be a Christian, a Quaker, a vegan and an activist, but I never chose to be gay.
I am what I am and it's not a choice
Peterson Toscano
Published 20 July 2007
Being gay myself, many folks consider me an expert on all things gay. Did Alexander the great have a male lover? What does the Bible say about homosexuality? For my bay window, should I use lace or chintz curtains?
As a gay theatrical performance activist, the most common question I get is: “how old are you?”
Such a rude question, but completely understandable because of my wild past including the 17-year quest to transform myself into a heterosexual with side trips to Zambia, England, and Ecuador plus a five year marriage. They look at my fresh, young face and wonder 'how did you do all that?' I explain that I am a 42-year-old, non-smoking vegan who moisturizes (It is never too young to start!).
The second most common question I get is: “do people choose to be gay?”
When someone is romantically and sexually attracted to someone of the same-sex, is this nature or nurture? Genetics or a mere whim?
This is a scientific question, best left to scientists. No one knows for sure although researchers have amassed a body of evidence that points to biological factors leading to a same-sex orientation.
One recent study by J. Michael Bailey at Boston’s Northeastern University revealed that among identical twin brothers, if one is gay, the other has a 52 per cent chance of being gay. (Fraternal twins show a 22 per cent chance while brothers who are not twins and do not share the same genetic code show only an 11 per cent chance of both being gay). According to a 1997 Canadian study, Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines discovered that the more brothers in a family, the higher the chance that the youngest ones will be gay.
No one has yet discovered the “gay gene”, but, then again, scientists have yet to discover a gene that causes some people to be left-handed.
Human sexuality is highly complex. We all start out in the womb as female, and then mom’s body puts some of us through a hormonal rinse cycle, which turns us male. With such a complicated transition who can say if all humans are 100 per cent male or female. Scientifically speaking we determine someone’s sex according to many factors, not simply the bits between our legs.
But I stray into murky embryonic waters. Back to choice. Did I choose to be gay?
Yes, on September 21, 1972 in 2nd grade (age 7) I said to myself: “Although most people treat gays like crap and only heterosexuality is represented and celebrated in my world, from this time forth I choose to like other boys instead of girls. Sure others will bully me, maybe even beat me up, but hey someone’s got to be society’s punching bag."
Actually, no, I never chose to be gay. In fact, for nearly two decades I even tried choosing NOT to be gay.
Growing up I knew I was different from the other boys around me. When puberty hit and all my male friends went crazy for girls while I went crazy for my male friends, I understood the difference—I was gay, a homo, a queer, a faggot. From messages I heard on the playground, in the media and at church, I determined gays are sinful and abnormal. Instead I wanted to be a good boy.
So, at the age of 17 after giving my heart (and the rest of me) to Jesus, I embarked on a journey to straighten myself out. I spent 17 years and over $30,000 USD on three continents attempting to change or at least suppress my same-sex attractions. I discovered the Ex-Gay Movement, which promises that homosexuals can live gay-free lives. I reasoned that if being gay were a choice, a product of a dysfunctional upbringing in the midst of a lost and dying world, than surely with the power of God and the guidance of ex-gay ministers, I could “un-choose” being gay or at least choose the right thing for a change.
No surprise, it didn't work. Change was not possible, at least not a change in sexual orientation. But through the years of trying I did change. I became suicidal, filled with shame and self-loathing. The ex-gay process left me depleted, discouraged and depressed. It caused emotional, psychological and spiritual harm.
No, I never chose my same-sex attractions. Also, after I came to my senses and came out of the closet, I did not choose to be “gay”—to act gay according to the current standards and stereotypes presented in both the gay and straight media. Instead I chose to be authentic, to no longer demonise my sexuality, to integrate my faith with the rest of my life. I did choose to be a Christian, a Quaker, a vegan and an activist, but I never chose to be gay.
Monday, July 9, 2007
L'Chaim!
Yesterday, my beloved and I celebrated the first anniversary of our holy union ceremony. He had mentioned while we were still dating that he'd love to have a caricature of the two of us, so I took our wedding album to a local caricaturist, and he produced the nice-sized drawing you see, in part, at right. My sweetie is really pleased with the results, as am I. (By the way, I made out, too: he got us tickets to go see Kathy Griffin at the local performing arts hall!)
Friday, July 6, 2007
Begging your indulgence for a brief moment of whining...
I've been feeling discouraged about the Church lately. At every turn, I seem to encounter people who have no interest in the Church but clearly embody its best values, and the loud protestations of self-proclaimed Christians who embody the very worst of bigotry and pharisaism. Certainly, my fellow congregants are not like the latter, and I'm sure, neither are the majority of Christians in this country. But, they don't speak up nearly as much as the bigots, do they?
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Friday, June 8, 2007
Time Magazine Interview of Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams
You can find Time Magazine's troubling interview with Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, here. In it, Williams again voices his dissatisfaction with the election and consecration of Bishop V. Gene Robinson, on the grounds that consecrating an openly gay man constituted what many Anglicans, especially in the "global south," regarded as a breach of communion.
Williams' position seems to be that no part of the church should undertake actions that other parts will regard as communion-breaking, even when such actions are undertaken as a response to the Gospel call for compassion and justice.
But, what the Archbishop seems to fail to understand, is that it is not the offical sanctioning or actions that are regarded by opponents as communion-breaking, but the underlying beliefs. If the ordaining of gay and lesbian people, and the blessing of our unions, causes offense, it is because this reflects our emerging belief as a church that the sheer fact of being gay and lesbian is not "intrinsically disordered," and that homosexuality is not contemptible on Biblical grounds.
It is that belief--not just official positions or acts--that is causing the present divide, and there is nothing we can do about that, other than continue to explain our reasoning and share our experience. Many in the global South simply cannot accept the idea of being in communion with those who hold such beliefs.
But, we cannot simply stop believing as we do, and we cannot forcibly stop many in the global South, or among our own recusants, from refusing to accept communion with us as long as we hold such beliefs.
By advocating the idea that we should act as if we believe homosexuality is sinful in order not to scandalize others, the Archbishop--whose writings and presentations prior to his elevation as Archbishop make it clear that he shares the conviction that the Church has been misguided in its attitude toward homosexuality--is inevitably advocating hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
Certainly, any church, like any other community, has a right to adopt official teachings and positions, and to define certain moral positions as being "beyond the pale" of that teaching.
But, it seems to me, that does not add up to an obligation by anyone to "fudge" their disagreement with such teaching. It is incumbent on any moral agent--whether an individual or community--to be open and honest about ones understanding, and not to pretend to adhere to teachings that one does not, in fact, believe in, just in order to "fit in the community."
And then, to accept the consequences: If ones convictions fall within the "official" teaching of a group one has historically belonged to, well and good. If not, then one must have the backbone to declare what one finds to be true. This does not mean one should accept lightly a parting of the ways between oneself and others with whom one has been in community. But, one should have the backbone not to pretend to believe other than one does just because others make it clear that, on the basis of that belief, they can no longer accept you as part of the community. Anything less is immoral cowardice.
As a gay person who remained in the closet all too long in a cowardly and immoral attempt to "fit into" an often unaccepting community, I can speak to this from hard-won experience.
When ones attempts to "fit in" go beyond "fudging" about ones beliefs or experience, to turning a blind eye to injustice by members of the community toward others, that immorality is greatly compounded.
And that is why, I am sad to say, I believe Archbishop Williams' positions, actions and statements around the issue of homosexuality in the Church have been both immoral, and cowardly.
Willliams' cowardice has been somewhat mitigated by his concern for avoiding past "colonialist" behavior on the part of European and Euro-American Christians toward their sisters and brothers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and their descendents. But, the Archbishop does not seem to understand how paternalistic his current stance is. If we are to treat our fellow Anglicans of the global South and East as fellow adults, then this entails being honest with them about where we stand, and accepting that they may find this unacceptable, and choose to stand apart from us. That is their adult prerogative. But, to dissemble to them, to attempt to shield them from the fact that we disagree profoundly with them about notions of gender role and sexuality, about Biblical interpretation and even, in certain important respects, about the meaning of faith in God, is to treat them as children, and is an attitude profoundly caught up in our past colonialist relationship.
Williams' position seems to be that no part of the church should undertake actions that other parts will regard as communion-breaking, even when such actions are undertaken as a response to the Gospel call for compassion and justice.
But, what the Archbishop seems to fail to understand, is that it is not the offical sanctioning or actions that are regarded by opponents as communion-breaking, but the underlying beliefs. If the ordaining of gay and lesbian people, and the blessing of our unions, causes offense, it is because this reflects our emerging belief as a church that the sheer fact of being gay and lesbian is not "intrinsically disordered," and that homosexuality is not contemptible on Biblical grounds.
It is that belief--not just official positions or acts--that is causing the present divide, and there is nothing we can do about that, other than continue to explain our reasoning and share our experience. Many in the global South simply cannot accept the idea of being in communion with those who hold such beliefs.
But, we cannot simply stop believing as we do, and we cannot forcibly stop many in the global South, or among our own recusants, from refusing to accept communion with us as long as we hold such beliefs.
By advocating the idea that we should act as if we believe homosexuality is sinful in order not to scandalize others, the Archbishop--whose writings and presentations prior to his elevation as Archbishop make it clear that he shares the conviction that the Church has been misguided in its attitude toward homosexuality--is inevitably advocating hypocrisy and moral cowardice.
Certainly, any church, like any other community, has a right to adopt official teachings and positions, and to define certain moral positions as being "beyond the pale" of that teaching.
But, it seems to me, that does not add up to an obligation by anyone to "fudge" their disagreement with such teaching. It is incumbent on any moral agent--whether an individual or community--to be open and honest about ones understanding, and not to pretend to adhere to teachings that one does not, in fact, believe in, just in order to "fit in the community."
And then, to accept the consequences: If ones convictions fall within the "official" teaching of a group one has historically belonged to, well and good. If not, then one must have the backbone to declare what one finds to be true. This does not mean one should accept lightly a parting of the ways between oneself and others with whom one has been in community. But, one should have the backbone not to pretend to believe other than one does just because others make it clear that, on the basis of that belief, they can no longer accept you as part of the community. Anything less is immoral cowardice.
As a gay person who remained in the closet all too long in a cowardly and immoral attempt to "fit into" an often unaccepting community, I can speak to this from hard-won experience.
When ones attempts to "fit in" go beyond "fudging" about ones beliefs or experience, to turning a blind eye to injustice by members of the community toward others, that immorality is greatly compounded.
And that is why, I am sad to say, I believe Archbishop Williams' positions, actions and statements around the issue of homosexuality in the Church have been both immoral, and cowardly.
Willliams' cowardice has been somewhat mitigated by his concern for avoiding past "colonialist" behavior on the part of European and Euro-American Christians toward their sisters and brothers in Africa, Asia and Latin America, and their descendents. But, the Archbishop does not seem to understand how paternalistic his current stance is. If we are to treat our fellow Anglicans of the global South and East as fellow adults, then this entails being honest with them about where we stand, and accepting that they may find this unacceptable, and choose to stand apart from us. That is their adult prerogative. But, to dissemble to them, to attempt to shield them from the fact that we disagree profoundly with them about notions of gender role and sexuality, about Biblical interpretation and even, in certain important respects, about the meaning of faith in God, is to treat them as children, and is an attitude profoundly caught up in our past colonialist relationship.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Soulforce on the Nomination of James Holsinger for Surgeon General
Soulforce today expressed deep concern over the nomination of Dr. James Holsinger for United States Surgeon General.
"As the leading spokesperson for matters of public health, the Surgeon General should be guided by sound medical science, not anti-gay views rooted in religion-based bigotry," said Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes.
Dr. Holsinger is the current president of the United Methodist Judicial Council. As a member of the council, he opposed the 2004 decision to allow Rev. Karen Dammann, a lesbian, to continue serving as a minister. He also upheld the 2004 defrocking of Rev. Beth Stroud, another lesbian minister, and sided with a Virginia pastor who denied church membership to an openly gay man.
Read the rest of this article at soulforce.com.
"As the leading spokesperson for matters of public health, the Surgeon General should be guided by sound medical science, not anti-gay views rooted in religion-based bigotry," said Soulforce Executive Director Jeff Lutes.
Dr. Holsinger is the current president of the United Methodist Judicial Council. As a member of the council, he opposed the 2004 decision to allow Rev. Karen Dammann, a lesbian, to continue serving as a minister. He also upheld the 2004 defrocking of Rev. Beth Stroud, another lesbian minister, and sided with a Virginia pastor who denied church membership to an openly gay man.
Read the rest of this article at soulforce.com.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
The Lavender Heart of Texas
Those aware of the oppressive attitudes and policies propogated by the bishops of Dallas and Fort Worth might be astonished to find how comfortable a place Dallas can be for openly gay folks. Read John Cloud's article, "The Lavender Heart of Texas" in the 17 May edition of Time Magazine. (Photo: Jensen Walker for TIME)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
